Tucson CitizenTucson Citizen

Letters to the Editor


Phoenix airport should lasso Western name

Re: the Friday Associated Press article “Az to get $28M in stimulus funds for airport projects”:

I don’t understand why the name “Sky Harbor” is used to describe an airport in the middle of the desert.

Wouldn’t it make sense, this being the Southwest, to call it “Sky Corral”? The airport could have a Western theme.

Sean Cole

Hypocrisy prevalent when right complains

“Hillary, the Movie,” an unflattering montage, was dubbed a “campaign ad” by a federal judge during Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the presidency, and it now is before the Supreme Court.

The movie’s producer, a conservative nonprofit corporation called “Citizens United,” filed a lawsuit.

The movie was not censored. It was shown in theaters and is still available on DVD. But federal court prohibited its advertisement on TV on grounds that it was an “electioneering communication.”

The plaintiff is now claiming its First Amendment right to produce and distribute what it claims is a documentary, and the case is being heard by the Supreme Court.

The hubbub reminds this Tucson political activist of a similar case back in 1984, when then-state Rep. Peter Goudinoff and I “lifted” eight minutes of a pro-Star Wars video, produced by a nonprofit political corporation called High Frontier.

Our video was a critique of President Reagan’s effort to build an “umbrella” of space-based missile defenses around America so we could “survive” a nuclear war.

We thought the idea rubbish and argued thus in our video. To underscore our argument, we spliced in minutes of the High Frontier’s video and then, frame by frame, critiqued the argument.

High Frontier may have claimed First Amendment rights to promote Star Wars, but it certainly didn’t respect ours.

Once a copy of our video fell into the hands of High Frontier friends (we were distributing it freely to anyone who asked), High Frontier sued Goudinoff and me for copyright infringement. So much for First Amendment rights: ours!

These people play out of both sides of their mouths. If it’s in their interest to produce unflattering footage of a Democratic candidate, it’s protected by the First Amendment. If it’s an unflattering portrait of a Republican policy (star wars), it’s copyright protected.

Come on guys. Where’s fairness?

Goudinoff and I were defended by the ACLU on various grounds, not least that copyright law doesn’t extend to products (The High Frontier video) not being sold for profit.

High Frontier settled with us about a year after filing the suit. And in the settlement, I personally won the inestimably valuable right to criticize any of their propaganda products in perpetuity.

Sheila Tobias

Editor’s note: Sheila Tobias and Peter Goudinoff co-authored the 1982 book “What Kinds of Guns are they Buying for Your Butter: A Beginner’s Guide to National Defense”.

No beating around Bush on war crimes

Re: the Friday letter by John Bryant, “Int’l war crime arrests would hurt U.S., allies”:

War crimes, Mr. Bryant? You wouldn’t recognize a war crime if it walked around with a large sign shouting “war crime!”

Some people in Canada objected to President Bush’s visit on that ground? Some people probably agree with you, but they all live in Oakland!

If you want a definition of a war crime, try Saddam’s killing fields that operated every day, or Pol Pot’s murdering of one-third of the population of Cambodia.

Perhaps you might go back a bit further if you can find a book on Auschwitz, Dachau, Sobibor, Treblinka and many other concentration lagers to find the definition of a war crime.

If you want to dig a bit deeper, try the 20,000 Poles who were shot in the back of the head and buried in the Katryn Forest by the Russians!

You just are unable to quit whining even though Bush is at home in Texas. Save your crocodile tears for the gullible!

John F. Sukey

retired military

U.N.’s resolution on religion offensive

A few days ago, the United Nations passed a resolution against the defamation of religion. This resolution was pushed through by the 57 members of the United Nations that are Islamic.

It is ostensibly an act to protect all religions from persecution, but it is in fact an attempt to stifle all examination or criticism of Islam.

If member nations enacted the sort of legislation this resolution proposes, the result would inevitably lead to the complete control of individuals by religious authorities that characterized medieval Spain and Germany.

That is the goal of Islamic extremists. I urge you to oppose this step toward a new Inquisition by writing your leaders and demanding that they repudiate this offensive resolution.

Earl W. Jernigan


Our Digital Archive

This blog page archives the entire digital archive of the Tucson Citizen from 1993 to 2009. It was gleaned from a database that was not intended to be displayed as a public web archive. Therefore, some of the text in some stories displays a little oddly. Also, this database did not contain any links to photos, so though the archive contains numerous captions for photos, there are no links to any of those photos.

There are more than 230,000 articles in this archive.

In TucsonCitizen.com Morgue, Part 1, we have preserved the Tucson Citizen newspaper's web archive from 2006 to 2009. To view those stories (all of which are duplicated here) go to Morgue Part 1

Search site | Terms of service